Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
Date of Hearing 16.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 18.01.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-18, New Delhi, dated 12.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in rejecting the appeal filed before their office on account of delay in filing of appeal due to non-availability of Directors and without considering the merits of the appeal.
2. The fact is that the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Ld ACIT) has erred in adding Rs. 31,00,850/- in the total income of the assessee on account of issue of shares at more than fair market value u/s 56(2)(viib).
3. The Id. ACIT also issued notice for levy of Penalty on the above additions.
4. The incorrect addition of income as above paras has resulted in total assessed Loss of Rs.3,08,95,098/- instead of Current year Loss of Rs.3,39,95,948.
5. It seems that Ld. ACIT has not applied judicious knowledge and only acted to make unjustified additions.
6. It is contended that the Ld ACIT has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and proceeded to add Income on frivolous grounds.
3. In this case in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, an addition was made u/s 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs.31,00,850/-. The assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) only on the ground that there was four month delay in filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal.
Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notices. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the issue after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
We find that the Ld. CIT(A) is not at all correct in dismissing the appeal in limine on mere delay of four months. The reason for delay submitted by the assessee was that concerned Director was not available, hence the appeal could not be file in time.
We find that the delay in this case should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and he should have decided the appeal on merits.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the issue to the file of the Ld.